Len:

Phone lines are limited to roughly 38K by using the full audio bandwidth a
phone line is filtered to, with the early compression techniques. 56K is
obtained by improved data compression techniques.

Any line capable of supporting transmission of these audio freaks can
carry that much digital data (roughly +/-300hz to +/-5,000hz.

DSL is obtained by pulling all the filters from the line, audio bandwidth
is much expanded and much greater data can be crammed into that bandwidth,
with even greater efficient compression techniques.

Powerlines can support near/equal such bandwidths. With a bandwidth
allowing freqs to climb into the LF RF freqs, tremendous data speeds are
possible.... very localized interference to some rf freqs may be
generated... this is now in a testing phase...

Why this is so misunderstood is beyond explanation, or perhaps it is only
limited to the older generations, for some unknown reason--as any familiar
with technical details of data transmission methods and protocols should
know this, it is very basic stuff...

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:27:28 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 2:53 pm


wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 9:24 am
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:


HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.

Why do you keep beating this Dead Horse on "rapid transmission
of high speed digital transmission?"

Dave wrote that last. But I agree with him

Sweetums, you've been plugging for that all by yourself for
lots of messages in here. You NEGLECT any other forms of
communications and concentrate on imagery, many-pixel images.

"HF will never be the place for high-speed transmission?"
What do you "extra experts" think BPL is basically? Clue:
High-speed data transmission, most of it on HF.

And the answer to "why" is that other people bring it up. So I answer.

Is that not allowed?

It's allowed. It's also allowed that YOU *might* consider
OTHER forms of communications on beloved HF other than what
the holy Handbook says is "good."

Quit acting petulant.

The "charge" that high-speed data transmission is "impossible"

Who said that? It is most certainly possible. We just have to be
patient, very patient.

Sorry, I've lost my patience with the brain-draggers in here
only considering U.S. ham radio "high-tech" being some finished
product advertised in QST and having a "lab review" on it all
glowing with praise.

There's an INFINITY of POSSIBILITIES that can be done in U.S.
ham radio and about the ONLY innovation of late is the Tayloe
Mixer (patent pending). Mike Gingell in the UK came up with
the polyphase audio phase shifter for better phasing SSB
and Peter Martinez, also in the UK, came up with PSK31. Once
in a while some U.S. guys come out with an innovating product
and all you "communications experts" all get together and
carp it up, refuse to buy it, or say whatever each one of you
has is "so much better" than anything new. Newness is to be
feared?

Go back in time to the late Dick Carroll complaining and
grousing about his peripheral DSP audio filter...he said
outright in here that he had difficulty setting the
controls! Waaa...waaaa...if it ain't like it usta was in
the 1950s and 1960s it ain't no good!

Okay, so somebody INNOVATE something.

INNOVATE something besides sitting around gabbling how "good"
and "expert" you all are because you are morsemen and grand
champions in radio because you are federally authorized for
beeping. The rest of the radio world is NOT buying it. The
rest of the radio world will continue to improve as it has
been for years. The U.S. amateur radio world can only play
copycat and steal from that, having the ARRL say that "hams
invented it" when it didn't.

Tayloe did it. What have the other 700K+ done? Sit around
griping because none of you have done anything?

non seq